by Akuoma Joshua<\/p>\n
Recently we have been hearing news about western countries openly
\ncondemning the decision of the Nigerian government to ban homosexuality.
\nThe United States has even gone to the extent of threatening to impose
\nsanctions on Nigeria and top officials of the United Nations have aired
\ntheir disapproval of the anti-gay bill. Now I personally have nothing
\nagainst homosexuality, for all I care it is none of my business what two
\nadults choose to do in the comfort of their privacy. I don’t even have a
\nproblem with other countries trying to pressure a government violating the
\nhuman rights of it’s people, but what I do have a problem with is with the
\nconcept of human rights and the hypocrisy of the Western world in their
\ndefinition and usage of the term.<\/p>\n
What exactly are human rights? Human rights are the fundamental rights all
\nhumans are entitled to. According to the Declaration of Human Rights in
\nthe United Nations website, all humans are entitled to the right to
\nexpression, peaceful association, consensual marriage, privacy and
\nnondiscrimination. This obviously means Nigeria is violating the basic
\nglobally accepted human
\nrights that it is meant to be protecting, but it also means America and
\nother western countries are violating it too. How? By illegalizing
\npolygamy.<\/p>\n
Yes! Criminalizing polygamous marriages is a violation of the rights of
\nthose who want to engage in it. It is a violation of their rights to
\nexpression, peaceful association, consensual marriage, privacy and
\nnondiscrimination. Tell me, why should it be a crime to marry multiple
\npartners or a partner who is already married as long as all spouses
\ninvolved consent to it? It makes absolutely no sense to criminalize it.<\/p>\n
But those who say it does justify their stance by saying it violates the
\ninstitution of marriage, they say marriage should be an act between two
\npeople. In all sincerity, who are we to define the institution of
\nmarriage? Is there any universal law or belief system which says it should
\nbe between only two people? Were we not the same people who said it should
\nbe an act between a man and woman only? It would be sheer hypocrisy to
\nrevoke laws which have oppressed a minority and set other laws which
\nfurther oppress another minority.<\/p>\n
In all honesty, the institution of marriage need not have such strict
\nguidelines, it is an act of love and commitment between two people.
\nNumbers do not have to be involved as much as popular culture now
\nagrees that gender should not be involved. Therefore, whether you like it
\nor not, saying polygamy violates the sacredness of marriage is oppressive
\nas saying homosexuality violates the sacredness of marriage.<\/p>\n
Another argument against polygamy is that it violates the dignity and
\nhonour of the spouses involved, i.e., the spouses sharing a partner. First
\nand foremost, the violation of human dignity is a very subjective concept,
\nit varies through cultures. Those involved in consensual polygamous
\nmarriages do not think it is degrading and some even find it refreshing and
\nuplifting. Because you think a particular practice is degrading does not
\nmean all others should conform to your definition of the term.<\/p>\n
In the same line some might say that being scantily clad is degrading, but
\nthose involved in the act do not think so, and infact some of them are
\ncelebrated in the western world. Even more importantly, polygamy is a form
\nof marriage which should be consensual, as any other marriage should be.
\nThose entering into it are doing so with full knowledge of the system of
\nmarriage it is, likewise those already involved will show consent (legal
\nverified consent) before an extra spouse is brought in. It is not
\nsomething which is forced on anyone, it is totally consensual and hence
\nshould be made legal.<\/p>\n
In addition, those in favour of criminalizing polygamy justify their
\nstance with the argument that it creates a bad oppressive culture, an
\nexample being the Mormon communities in the US where young uninformed
\ngirls are made to marry adult men. First of all, I will like to point out
\nthat that is not polygamy, it is child abuse. Polygamy should be an act
\nbetween consenting adults well informed of what they are doing and
\nmentally capable of making their own decisions, just like in any other
\nmarriage.<\/p>\n
Even if monogamy was the only accepted and practiced type of marriage in
\nthe Mormon culture but underage girls were still being made to get
\nmarried, it would still be child abuse; the same way it would be child
\nabuse if an adult was engaging in sexual activity with a minor, whether of
\nthe same sex or not. It is not homosexuality or polygamy that is the
\ncrime, but the abuse of the child.<\/p>\n
Besides, these communities still manage to get around the law
\ncriminalizing polygamous marriages by legally marrying only the first wife
\nand marrying the subsequent wives in church. Therefore looking at it
\npractically nothing is really solved. And so the solution to solving the
\nproblem of child abuse in the Mormon communities and others like it is not
\ncriminalizing polygamy, as it is not the cause, neither does criminalizing
\nit solve the problem.<\/p>\n
And here comes one of the most popularly used yet unsound arguments by the
\nanti-polygamy crew, that it promotes gender inequality. But here is the
\nproblem, these people who say it promotes gender inequality fail to
\nunderstand the definition of the term polygamy. Apparently they think it
\nmeans polygyny or bigamy. They fail to understand polygamy does not just
\nentail one man and multiple women, but one woman and multiple men, it
\nencompasses all genders.<\/p>\n
As much as a man should have the right to have multiple spouses a woman
\nshould likewise have the right to have multiple spouses of her own. There
\nis clearly no gender inequality here and those who say there is have
\nclosed their eyes to this fact and are themselves sexist. This is because
\nthey limit polygamy to polygyny, they see it as something only a man is
\ncapable of doing, when in reality it is a broad term which calls for the
\nliberation of all. And so at the end of the day they are part of the
\nproblem they are protesting against.<\/p>\n
These are the main arguments against the legalization of polygamy,
\narguments which I have proven are all fallacious. I believe it all goes to
\nshow that the ban on polygamous marriage is an act of sentiment rather
\nthan an act of logic, just like the western countries might say about our
\nban on
\nhomosexuality. But my advice to our more liberal brothers is that they
\nclear the log from their eyes before they clear those in others. It is pure
\nhypocrisy to condemn others of what you are also guilty of doing. Legalize
\npolygamous marriage and only then will you be justified to condemn the
\nactions of the Nigerian government.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
by Akuoma Joshua Recently we have been hearing news about western countries openly condemning the decision of the Nigerian government to ban homosexuality. The United States has even gone to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":21792,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23136","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-opinions"],"yoast_head":"\n